Category Archives: Patentability

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2254 O’MALLEY, HUGHES (D), STOLL August 15, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that VM’s US 5,953,740 relating to computer memory systems was directed to ineligible subject matter reversed. Summary: Visual Memory (VM) appealed DC dismissal of VM’s infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2013, -2049 PROST, LOURIE, SCHALL June 23, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of eligibility under § 101 reversed; decision of no exceptional case damages under § 285 affirmed. Summary: Prism appealed final DC decision denying its motions … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC

Docket No. 2016-1766 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Patent directed at detecting myeloperoxidase release as a sign of cardiovascular disease ineligible under § 101. DC decision of no contributory or induced infringement affirmed since CCF fell “short … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc. et al. (“ADS Security, L.P.”)

Docket No. 2016-2521 PROST, MAYER, WALLACH June 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC denial of request for attorney’s fees under § 285 reversed and remanded (due, e.g., to “Rothschild’s willful ignorance of the prior art”). Summary: ADS appealed DC denial of … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment

AIPLA Legislative Proposal and Report on Patent Eligible Subject Matter

May 12, 2017 The AIPLA issued a proposed revision to § 101 (“Proposal”) that seeks to “creat[e] a new framework with clearly defined statutory exceptions”, “provide a clear, objective test that will result in appropriately broad eligibility”, “expressly reaffirm[] the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., et al.

Docket No. 2016-1499 LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL April 28, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that RC’s claims are ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “[a]dding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment